02/19/2009 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy: Victor Kao, Yvette Dudley. Ms. Dudley will file a notice of appearance. Mr. Kao will (1) advise defendant's counsel shortly of the date of the alleged infringement, as there is a question whether defendant was residing at the service address at the time; and (2) make a settlement demand. The parties will then attempt to settle the case before litigation costs mount. Discovery deadline 8/31/09. Next conference 9/9/09 at 2:00 (tel).Initial Conference Hearing held on 2/19/2009 (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 02/19/2009)

p2pnet news view RIAA | P2P:- Patti Santangelo is a wonderful person and I’m really glad for her and two of her five children, Michelle and Bobby, that the RIAA’s vicious war against them is now all-but over.

They were the first family to really put up a fight against Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG and their RIAA and it could be said they paved the way for many, if not most, of other RIAA victims who, inspired by her example, decided they weren’t going to take it either.

Tanya Andersen is now famous as the woman who took the RIAA on and won. And as she told me this morning, that might never have happened had it not been for Patti’s example.

“Her case was the one that got me going,” Tanya said. “When the RIAA came after me, I didn’t know anything and it was only by reading about Patti that I was able to get any information.

“She stood up against them and made other people understand they could do the same.”

On the plaintiff's end, the owners of the underlying copyrights in the musical compositions are not involved in the case; neither are many smaller record companies.

As to the defendants, since no investigation is made to ascertain that the defendant is actually someone who engaged in peer to peer file sharing of copyrighted music without authorization, there are many defendants who have no idea why they are being sued and who did nothing even arguably violative of anyone's copyright. Defendants have included people who have never even used a computer, and many people who although they have used a computer, have never engaged in any peer to peer file sharing.

Sometimes the cases are misleadingly referred to as cases against 'downloaders'; in fact the RIAA knows nothing of any downloading when it commences suit, and in many instances no downloading ever took place.

It is more accurate to refer to the cases as cases against persons who paid for internet access which the RIAA has reason to believe was used by some person -- possibly the defendant, possibly someone else -- to engage in peer to peer file sharing.

At the core of the RIAA lawsuit process, is its initial lawsuit against a group of "John Does".

Here is how it works:

A lawsuit is brought against a group of "John Does". The location of the lawsuit is where the corporate headquarters of the internet service provider (ISP) is located.

All the RIAA knows, or believes it knows, about the people it is suing is that they are the people who paid for an internet access acount for a particular dynamic IP address.

The "John Does" may live -- and usually do live -- hundreds or thousands of miles away from the City where the lawsuit is pending, and are not even aware that they have been sued.

The RIAA is aware that most of the defendants do not live in the state, and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, but bring the case anyway.

They are also aware that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there is no basis for joining all these defendants in a single lawsuit, but do indeed join them in one case, sometimes as many as several hundred in a single "litigation".

The only "notice" the "John Does" get is a vague letter from their ISP, along with copies of an ex parte discovery order and a subpoena, indicating that an order has already been granted against them: i.e., instead of receiving notice that the RIAA is applying for an order, they instead are notified that they have already lost the motion, without ever even having known of its existence.

They are not given copies of (i) the summons and complaint, (ii) the papers upon which the Court granted the ex parte discovery order, or (iii) the court rules needed to defend themselves, all of which are normally provided to defendants in federal lawsuits. Most recipients of this "notice" do not even realize that it means that there is a lawsuit against them. None of the recipients of the "notice" have any idea what they are being sued for, or what basis the Court had for granting the ex parte discovery order and for allowing the RIAA to obtain a subpoena.

They are told they have a few days, or maybe a week or two, to make a motion to quash the subpoena. But if they were to talk to a lawyer they could not give the lawyer an iota of information as to what the case is about, what the basis for the subpoena is, or any other details that would permit a lawyer to make an informed decision as to whether a motion to quash the subpoena could, or could not, be made. What is more, the lawyer would have to be admitted to practice in the jurisdiction in which the ex parte case is pending, in order to do anything at all.

In other words, except for lawyers who are knowledgeable about the RIAA tactics, no lawyer could possibly have any suggestions that would enable "John Doe" to fight back.

So "John Doe" of course defaults. Then the John Doe "case" may drag on for months or even years, with the RIAA being the only party that has lawyers in court to talk to the judges and other judicial personnel.

The RIAA -- without notice to the defendants -- makes a motion for an "ex parte" order permitting immediate discovery. ("Ex parte" means that one side has communicated to the Court without the knowledge of the other parties to the suit. It is very rarely permitted, since the American system of justice is premised upon an open system in which, whenever one side wants to communicate with the Court, it has to give prior notice to the other side, so that they too will have an opportunity to be heard.).

The "ex parte" order would give the RIAA permission to take "immediate discovery" -- before the defendants have been served or given notice -- which authorizes the issuance of subpoenas to the ISP's asking for the names and addresses and other information about their subscribers, which is information that would otherwise be confidential.

In the United States the courts have been routinely granting these "ex parte" orders, it appears. (Not so in other countries. Both Canada and the Netherlands have found the RIAA's investigation too flimsy to warrant the invasion of subscriber privacy. Indeed the Netherlands court questioned the investigation's legality.).

We are aware of one instance in which a Magistrate Judge sua sponte rejected the application because there was no basis for its ex parte character. In Capital v. Does 1-16 in the District of New Mexico, Magistrate Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia directed the RIAA to confer with the University of New Mexico with a view towards establishing a procedure to give all affected parties prior notice and an opportunity to be heard in connection with the motion.

And we are aware of another instance in which the application was rejected on its merits, based on the Court's observation that there was no legal basis for the discovery at all. In Interscope v. Does 1-7, an ex parte proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia, in Newport News, Virginia, in a 5-page decision by Judge Walter D. Kelley, Jr., the Court denied the RIAA's ex parte motion for an order granting discovery into the identities of students at the College of William & Mary.

Once an ex parte order is granted, the RIAA issues a subpoena to the ISP, and gets the subscriber's name and address.

The RIAA then discontinues its "John Doe" "ex parte" case, and sues the defendant in his own name in the district where he or she lives.

Thus, at the core of the whole process are:
(1) the mass lawsuit against a large number of "John Does";
(2) the "ex parte" order of discovery; and
(3) the subpoenas demanding the names and addresses of the "John Does".

In what we suppose was a "testing of the waters", the RIAA went into federal court in Denver -- where its lawyers are based -- and made an ex parte application to have the Court dispense with the need for any court order at all; the Magistrate to whom the application had been assigned declined to rule on that request, but did give the RIAA the ex parte discovery order it had sought.

The RIAA's campaign against college students, announced in March, 2007, has led to a spate of similar ex parte proceedings against colleges and universities as ISP's.

As noted above, the proceeding against College of William & Mary students in Virginia (Interscope v. Does 1-7) was dismissed in its entirety, the Judge observing that there was no legal basis for the RIAA's application, and the motion against University of New Mexico students, in Capitol v. Does 1-16, was denied on the ground that there was no lawful rationale for proceeding ex parte, rather than on notice to (a) the students, and (b) the university.

As noted below, the 'college edition' of the RIAA's "ex parte" campaign is running into resistance, as motions to vacate the ex parte orders are proliferating. As of this writing we are aware of seven. "John Doe" students have launched attacks on the process in Boston in Arista v. Does 1-21, in Oklahoma in Arista v. Does 1-11, in Florida in Interscope v. Does 1-40, and in Tennessee in Virgin v. Does 1-33. A motion was made in Raleigh, North Carolina, by a "John Doe" who is a student at North Carolina State University, in LaFace v. Does 1-38.

The first challenge of which we are aware that has been made by a college or university itself, rather than by the affected students, is Arista v. Does 1-17, where the Oregon Attorney General has filed a motion to quash the RIAA's subpoena directed to the University of Oregon, seeking student identities. The motion argues that the RIAA's identification evidence is flawed, so that the University could not respond to the subpoena without either violating privacy laws by divulging private information about students who are not shown to have committed any copyright infringement, or by conducting an elaborate investigation on the RIAA's behalf. The motion papers further argue that the discovery which plaintiffs seek is not obtainable at all under the procedures employed by the RIAA to obtain it, citing Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388 (E.D. Va. 2007). The Oregon case has taken a most uncomfortable turn for the RIAA. Upon receipt of the RIAA's opposition papers, attempting to show the Court what evidence the RIAA had, the Oregon AG asked the Court for discovery into what appeared to be the use of illegal investigators (MediaSentry).

The first challenge of which we are aware mounted by a university's law school legal clinic is Arista v. Does 1-27, in Portland, Maine, targeting University of Maine students. 2 undergrads are represented there by student attorneys working under the supervision of a law school professor at the Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, joining the 8 University of Maine students fighting the RIAA who are represented by a private law firm.

The ex parte discovery process is being challenged in the Boston University case, in Boston, Massachusetts, where a motion to quash and vacate has been made in Arista v. Does 1-21, on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidentiary showing. Notably, one of the expert witnesses who submitted a declaration in support of the students' motion, attacking the RIAA's evidentiary averments, was no less than the Chairman of the university's Computer Science Department.

In the Oklahoma State University case, Arista v. Does 1-11, the students -- represented by the same attorney who obtained a $68,000-plus attorneys fee award against the RIAA in Capitol v. Foster -- submitted a lengthy, detailed, scathing declaration of a computer security and forensics expert who challenged most of the key elements in the RIAA's entire 'investigative' strategy. The OSU students also pointed out to the Court that the RIAA's joinder of eleven (11) John Does in a single case was in direct violation of the November 2004 order in Fonovisa v. Does 1-41. The motion was denied in all respects.

In Tampa, Florida, in Interscope v. Does 1-40, the students have sought both to dismiss the case for improper joinder under the Fonovisa v. Does 1-41 case and other caselaw, and to quash the subpoena based on the absence of any sufficient showing that ex parte relief was warranted.

Even without a challenge, as noted above, a Magistrate Judge in New Mexico recognized that there was no basis for moving ex parte, rather than on notice, and sua sponte denied the RIAA's application, in Capital v. Does 1-16. Magistrate Judge Garcia directed the RIAA to confer with the University of Mexico's lawyers to work out a plan for giving prior notice to the students named as "John Does".

The ISP ex parte process was unsuccessfully challenged in 3 cases in Manhattan federal court in early 2006: Atlantic v. Does 1-25 before Judge Swain, Motown v. Does 1-99 before Judge Buchwald, and Warner v. Does 1-149, before Judge Owen, in which "John Doe" defendants represented by Ray Beckerman and Ty Rogers brought motions to (a) vacate the ex parte discovery order on the ground that it had not been supported by competent evidence of a prima facie copyright infringment case, (b) quash the subpoena on that ground plus the additional ground that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief, and (c) sever and dismiss as to all defendants other than John Doe #1.

The moving parties were from Iowa, Texas, Long Island, and North Carolina -- i.e. not one of the John Does was someone who could properly be sued in Manhattan federal court.

All 3 motions were denied.

The decisions are not appealable, since they are, theoretically, "interlocutory". However, it is the RIAA's usual practice to discontinue the "John Doe" cases, which means that there will never be a final judgment in the case, so the orders will never be brought to appellate scrutiny.

The courts have recognized and agreed with the severance point, however, noting that it is improper to join the multiple John Does. See, e.g., Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 04-CA-550 LY (W.D. Texas, Austin Div., 2004). The Fonovisa court ordered the RIAA to cease its practice of joining "John Does". The RIAA, however, has continued the practice. We are not aware of any contempt motions having been made yet.

Prof. Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School has called upon Harvard University to resist the RIAA's "John Doe" subpoena process.

A new ex parte "John Doe" litigation tactic -- this one involving neither an ISP nor a college -- has surfaced in Chicago, Illinois, and in Fresno, California. The Fresno case, SONY v. Does 1-10, which is an outgrowth of the discontinued Sacramento case, SONY v. Merchant, is being challenged by some of its apparent targets. The RIAA has indicated an interest in commencing ex parte discovery proceedings against the family of Rae J Schwartz, the Queens woman suffering from MS who is being sued in Brooklyn in Elektra v. Schwartz.

As noted above in "College version of the procedure", the RIAA's "John Doe" discovery procedures are under attack both by the college students, and by at least one university.

After getting the name and address of the person who paid for the internet access account, they then send him or her a letter demanding a "settlement".

Their settlement is usually for $3750, non-negotiable, and contains numerous one-sided and unusual provisions, such as a representation that peer to peer file sharing of copyrighted music is a copyright infringement (a representation that is far too broad, undoubtedly there are 'sharing' behaviors with digital files, as there are with cd's, that are not copyright infringements). Even certain innocuous provisions, worded in a way to make them obligations of the defendant but not the RIAA, are deemed 'non-negotiable'. At bottom, the settlement is cold comfort to the defendant, because it does not speak for the other potential plaintiffs -- the owners of the copyrighted work, or the other record companies not represented by the RIAA litigation fund. That this omission is significant is illustrated by the new wave of copyright enforcement actions by music publishers against guitar tablature sites. There is nothing to prevent them from suing the individuals who have settled with the RIAA over the sound recording rights.

The newest wrinkle in the RIAA's pre-litigation settlement strategy is to encourage "early settlements" prior to commencement of a litigation. The RIAA has even set up a web site where people can go to make these settlements. The RIAA has stated that the settlements will be for a $1000 or more less than otherwise. However the first such settlement we have heard of is for $3500, which is only $250 less. We have heard of $3000 settlements being "offered" to college students. The RIAA has opened this initiative on two fronts, (1) the ISP's, and (2) colleges and universities. Some colleges have cooperated, forwarding the RIAA letters to the students, some have not. It remains to be seen how the ISP's will react.

If there is no settlement, the RIAA then commences suit against the named defendant in the district in which he or she resides. A boilerplate complaint is used which accuses the defendant of "downloading, distributing, and/or making available for distribution" a list of songs. There are actually 2 lists, a long list (exhibit B) and a short list (exhibit A). The long list is a 'screen shot' of a list of file names which were allegedly in a shared files folder. The short list is allegedly a list of song which the RIAA's investigators were able to download.

No details as to how, when, or where the alleged "infringement" took place are pled.

A preliminary procedural question is whether the cases are "related", and therefore should all be assigned to the same judge. In the Southern District of New York these cases against unrelated defendants are not treated as related; in the Eastern District of New York they are treated as related, and every new case is assigned to the same District Judge/Magistrate Judge team. In Maverick v. Chowdhury and Elektra v. Torres the RIAA's designation of all its cases as related has been challenged by the defendants.

If the defendant defaults, plaintiffs apply for, and apparently usually obtain, a default judgement for $750 per Exhibit A song -- a number which is over 1000 times the 70-cent amount for which the license to the song could have been purchased. This measure of damages has been challenged. (See Damages below.)

Despite the disfavored nature of default judgments, the strong public policy against matters being decided on default, and the almost inevitability of a Court's vacating a default which has not been sitting there for an awful long time, the RIAA, consistent with its "scorched earth" policy, appears to have a practice of fighting strenuously over every default it gets. In Warner v. DeWitt, in Chicago, it procured a default judgment, and refused to stipulate to vacate the default. Defendant was forced to move to vacate, and the motion was granted.

In Atlantic v. Boggs, in Corpus Christi, Texas, it likewise refused to waive defendant's default, and moved for a default judgment based on defendant's alleged "nonappearance". The Court, in denying the RIAA's motion, reminded the RIAA that the defendant had in fact appeared.

In Elektra v. Santangelo II, despite the fact that they had already entered into a discovery schedule with defendant's lawyer, they obtained a default judgment. The Court then vacated the default judgment.

In August, 2007, a default judgment application was denied in Interscope v. Rodriguez, in San Diego, California, in a decision which may have far-reaching implications, since Judge Rudi M. Brewster held that the RIAA's complaint -- which was identical to the complaint it has used in all of its cases -- fails to state a claim for relief, consisting of no more than "conclusory" "boilerplate" "speculation".

A similar default judgment application was denied two months later in Atlantic v. Dangler, in Rochester, New York, this time on evidentiary grounds. Judge David G. Larimer concluded -- based upon the RIAA"s evidentiary submission (no doubt identical to the submissions in thousands of other default judgment applications) -- that the RIAA's evidence failed to substantiate either that the defendant was in fact the file-sharer, or that the file-sharer had actually downloaded or distributed any files.

While it is of course preferable for a defendant to have legal representation in these matters, the economics often makes it impossible. We note that a pro se litigant in the Middle District of Alabama succeeded in staving off a summary judgment motion by the RIAA's legal team,which included the RIAA's top lawyer Richard Gabriel, in Motown v. Liggins (see Summary judgment below). In Motown v. DePietro, in Philadelphia, a pro se litigant defeated, for the time being, a summary judgment motion made by the RIAA. However, she may be facing a new discovery sanctions motion based on alleged spoliation of evidence.

In Atlantic v. Howell, a pro se litigant lost a summary judgment motion. However, he thereafter made a motion for "reconsideration" and won, getting the Court's initial order vacated.

The most important things a pro se litigant should know about are as follows: (1) there is a pro se clerk in every federal court house; you should go in and see the pro se clerk for assistance in putting in your answer; (2) from the very outset you must make it clear that you are demanding a jury trial, and do not let anyone talk you out of demanding a jury trial; you must put a jury demand in your initial answer; (3) the RIAA's attempt to get your hard drive is invasive and improper, and you should not let it happen without safeguards; you should make a copy of the protecive order in SONY v. Arellanes and show it to the judge; (4) the RIAA does not necessarily have the right to take depositions of your family members, and you should ask the judge for protection from that; (5) if there are any children 18 or younger involved, or people otherwise unable to fend for themselves, you should ask the judge to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect them, as was done in Priority Records v. Brittany Chan and Elektra v. Schwartz, and you should try to get an order which provides that the RIAA has to pay for the guardian ad litem fees; and (6) even though you are pro se you can hire a lawyer to give you advice (this is a lot less expensive than having a lawyer represent you in court).

There have been challenges to the sufficiency of the boilerplate complaint in the form of motions to dismiss complaint. A combination dismissal/summary judgment motion was made in Elektra v. Dennis in Jackson, Mississippi, but the RIAA sought to discontinue the case after receiving the motion. More recently, a motion to dismiss was made in Warner v. Cassin in Westchester, which is, as of this writing, pending..

An unusal result occurred in Interscope v. Duty, in Arizona. The judge denied the defendant's dismissal motion, not because he agreed with the RIAA, but because he didn't feel he understood the technology well enough to rule on the case.

Then, in Waco, Texas, in Warner v. Payne, in Fonovisa v. Alvarez in Abilene, Texas, and in Maverick v. Goldshteyn in Brooklyn, New York, the judges followed the Interscope decision, declining to decide whether 'making available' is a copyright infringement, and upheld the complaint. The motion was also denied in Arista v. Greubel, in Fort Worth, Texas.

In Elektra v. Barker in Manhattan, the motion was pending for 2 years, until it was finally decided on March 31, 2008. The RIAA had cited to the judge their victories in the other six (6) cases. In Barker, however, unlike in other cases, amicus curiae briefs had been submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Internet Industry Association, in support of Ms. Barker's motion, and by the MPAA in opposition to it. Additionally the American Association of Publishers requested permission to file such a brief, and the United States Department of Justice submitted a "Statement of Interest" taking issue with an argument made by the EFF. Briefing was completed in the spring of 2006, and oral argument was held by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on January 26, 2007. Judge Karas indicated at the oral argument that he would not "punt" on the "making available" argument, but would decide its validity. A transcript of the oral argument in Barker is available online.

When it finally came down, the March 31, 2008, decision, rejected the RIAA's "making available" theory altogether, but nevertheless upheld the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs' pleading of actual distribution and actual downloading were sufficient. The Court also suggested a different theory -- one not hitherto suggested by the RIAA lawyers or by the evidence -- that the plaintiffs might use, of "offering to distribute for purposes of further distribution", and gave them leave to replead if they chose to do so. The decision is completely silent as to what plaintiffs would have to prove in order to establish such an "offer". In the opinion of William Patry, author of the Patry on Copyright treatise, (and in the opinion of the undersigned), Judge Karas erred in equating "publication" with "distribution". It appeared to the undersigned that Judge Karas erred in delving into the legislative history of the 1976 Act in order to determine what a distribution is, while the statute -- 17 USC 106(3) -- is unambiguous and required no such analysis.

Meanwhile, the thunder which Elektra v. Barker might have caused was muffled by two (2) other important decisions likewise rejecting the RIAA's "making available" theory, Atlantic v. Brennan and Arista v. Does 1-21 also called London-Sire v. Doe 1.

The 9-page Brennan decision came down 6 weeks earlier. It was not a determination of a dismissal motion, but a decision rejecting an application for default judgment. Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the District of Connecticut repudiated the "making available" theory,on the ground that there cannot be a violation of the distribution right without an actual distribution, and that one of the components of a distribution is an actual dissemination of copies.

The third decision repudiating the RIAA's "making available" theory was the 52-page decision of Judge Nancy Gertner of the District of Massachusetts on a motion to quash subpoena, in Arista v. Does 1-21, which in dictum rejected the "making available" theory and noted that there cannot be a violation of the distribution right without an actual distribution, and that a mere "offer" to distribute is insufficient.

In Interscope v. Rodriguez, noted above, in the context of an application for default judgment the Judge sua sponte dismissed the RIAA's standard complaint for failure to state a claim. Interestingly, when the RIAA filed an amended complaint six days later, the "making available" allegation was nowhere to be found.

We are advised that new complaints being filed by the RIAA have jettisoned the "making available" altogether. If that is the case it is altogether possible that "making available" may die with a whimper rather than a bang.

A motion to dismiss has been fully briefed in Warner v. Cassin in Westchester, and is awaiting argument or decision.

In Elektra v. Perez, 2006 WL 3063493, in Oregon, a case which wasn't on our radar until we tripped across the October, 2006, decision on Westlaw, the judge denied a motion to dismiss, and appears to have resolved the "making available" argument in the RIAA's favor, but the procedural context was unusual: it was in response to the RIAA's motion to dismiss its own case. The court in Motown v. DePietro, in a footnote, likewise ruled that "making available" is actionable, but DePietro is a pro se case, and a reading of the footnote -- which relies on dictum from the 2001 Ninth Circuit decision in Napster -- suggests that the issue was not fully briefed to the Judge. Similarly in Atlantic v. Howell, another pro se case, the judge held that 'making available' is actionable, but likely without having received full briefing on the state of the law. The pro se defendant moved for reconsideration, reconsideration was granted, and the order vacated. As of this writing, a new summary judgment motion is being briefed.

In Atlantic v. Serrano, a motion to dismiss complaint was denied. Interestingly, this was the same Court (Southern District of California) that dismissed the RIAA's complaint for failure to state a claim in Interscope v. Rodriguez. The Serrano decision, like the Santangelo decision, made no reference to the "making available" theory at all.

On at least one occasion, the RIAA sought to amend its boilerplate complaint to add a secondary liability theory against a parent, in Capitol v. Foster. Although no dismissal motion was ever made (the RIAA had discontinued the case when Ms. Foster indicated an intention to make a summary judgment motion) -- the Court did, in its decisions granting defendant's motion for attorneys fees, find the RIAA's theory to have been "marginal" and "untested", and its motives in bringing it "questionable".

Many affirmative defenses, too numerous to itemize here, have been interposed in these cases.

Although the RIAA has been nothing if not militant in aggressively attacking counterclaims, even innocuous ones such as claims for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement or claims for attorneys fees under the Copyright Act (see Counterclaims below), it has not, to our knowledge, aggressively attacked affirmative defenses.

The only case of which we are aware that has involved litigation over affirmative defenses is UMG v. Lindor. In Lindor, in the context of a motion for leave to amend the answer, the Court upheld both the legal sufficiency, and the possible merit factually, of Ms. Lindor's 9th affirmative defense, that the RIAA's $750-per-song-file damages theory was unconstitutional. 2006 WL 3335048. More recently the RIAA successfully moved to strike Ms. Lindor's 4th affirmative defense, of copyright misuse, predicated on the competitors' copyright-pooling agreement under which they present a united front in enforcement of their copyrights. Judge Trager dismissed that defense for illegal insufficiency.

The RIAA has a practice of making motions routinely, in all cases, to dismiss any and all counterclaims which are interposed; if it cannot find a substantive basis for much a motion, it will seek to strike it on technical grounds, such as redundancy. Since motions to strike for redundancy are disfavored in modern federal practice, these motions have met with mixed success.

A great flurry of litigation is going on now over counterclaims, since every new contested case we have seen interposes counterclaims and the RIAA is reflexively moving now to dismiss each and every one of them.

COUNTERCLAIMS FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

If a defendant counterclaims for attorneys fees, the RIAA will move to dismiss such a counterclaim, arguing that it is redundant since a successful defendant does not need to have interposed a counterclaim in order to collect attorneys fees. It has made a motion to dismiss a counterclaim for attorneys fees in a Georgia case, Priority v. Beers, and plans to make motions to strike the counterclaim in Elektra v. Schwartz, Elektra v. Torres, and Maverick v. Chowdhury, all in Brooklyn. A similar motion by the RIAA in Oregon in 2005, in Elektra v. Perez, was denied. The RIAA has not been able to cite any legal authority for its argument.

COUNTERCLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

The RIAA also moves to strike counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, arguing that they are redundant because a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' case would imply non-infringement. Such motions were denied in UMG v. Del Cid in Tampa, Florida, and in Capitol v. Foster and Warner v. Stubbs in Oklahoma, tabled until after discovery in Atlantic v. Shutovsky in Manhattan, and granted in Interscope v. Duty in Arizona, Atlantic v. DeMassi in Houston, Texas, Interscope v. Kimmel in Binghamton, New York, and Lava v. Amurao in White Plains, New York. The Electronic Frontier Foundation had submitted an amicus curiae brief, in opposition to the RIAA's motion, in Amurao.

The issue was also before the Court in SONY v. Crain in Beaumont, Texas, where the defendant -- an elderly Hurricane Rita survivor who never engaged in any file sharing, and who is defended by Legal Aid -- interposed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment, and the RIAA moved to strike it. Ms. Crain's attorneys have pointed out to the judge that (a) the RIAA's similar motion, made in Capitol v. Foster, was denied, (b) the RIAA has no legal authority for its position, and (c) it is necessary to have the counterclaim because of the RIAA's practice of discontinuing the cases before trial, thereby depriving a defendant of the right to be vindicated on the merits. The RIAA ultimately withdrew its monetary claims against defendant, before motions were determined.

Similar motions are being litigated in Atlantic v. Boggs in Corpus Christi, Texas, and Arista v. Finkelstein in Brooklyn, New York, and elsewhere.

The decision in Warner v. Stubbs, in Oklahoma, is pivotal, and should be cited by practitioners representing defendants on this issue. The defendant there interposed a declaratory judgment counterclaim, specifically reciting in the counterclaim that a reason for its necessity was plaintiffs' tendency to bring frivolous case and then withdraw them leaving defendant with no opportunity for a day in court. As if on cue, the RIAA moved to dismiss its own case and the counterclaim. The court dismissed the RIAA's case, but declined to dismiss the counterclaim, since it had an independent jurisdictional basis. All practitioners representing innocent defendants should take heed of Stubbs and be careful to interpose a counterclaim for declaratory judgment fashioned along the lines of the Stubbs counterclaim. However, in a rather strange postscript, the RIAA then unilaterally 'covenanted not to sue' Ms. Stubbs, and the Judge treated that as removing the "case or controversy" element from the case, and dismissed the counterclaim at that point.

OTHER COUNTERCLAIMS

In Atlantic v. Andersen, in Oregon, a number of counterclaims for tortious conduct under Oregon law, including violations of computer privacy, and Oregon RICO, have been interposed, and their sufficiency is presently being litigated. Similar counterclaims for trespass, invasion of privacy, etc., are being litigated in Priority v. Beer in Columbus, Georgia. In Elektra v. Santangelo II, in White Plains, New York, a counterclaim has been interposed for breach of the duty to warn, which the RIAA has of course moved to dismiss.

In Lava v. Amurao, in White Plains, NY, Atlantic v. Shutovsky in Manhattan, Atlantic v. DeMassi in Houston, Texas, UMG v. Del Cid in Tampa, Florida, and Interscope v. Kimmel in Binghamton, New York, "copyright misuse" was interposed as a counterclaim, alleging that the plaintiff record companies are "competitors in the business of recorded music.....[and] are a cartel acting collusively in violation of the antitrust laws and public policy, by litigating and settling all cases similar to this one together, and by entering into an unlawful agreement among themselves to prosecute and to dispose of all cases in an identical manner and through common lawyers..... Such actions represent an attempt....to secure for themselves rights far exceeding those provided by copyright laws......Such acts constitute misuse of copyrights, and lead to a forfeiture of the exclusive rights.....". The RIAA's motions to dismiss the copyright misuse counterclaims were denied in Amurao and Shutovsky, and granted in DeMassi, Kimmel, and Del Cid. Written decisions were handed down in Kimmel and Del Cid, but not in the others.

In Del Cid the Court denied so much of the RIAA's motion as sought to dismiss other counterclaims, such as claims for deceptive business practices, trespass to personal property, violation of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, and conspiracy to commit extortion, employ unlicensed investigators, and make unauthorized inspection of defendant's computer's contents. The Court rejected the RIAA's Noerr Pennington argument across the board, since N-P is inapplicable to "sham litigations".

A new case has arisen regarding the same counterclaims, plus a new one (abuse of process), Atlantic v. Boyer. The case is in the same court, and has been assigned to the same judge, so a motion to dismiss the counterclaims is unlikely.

In Maverick v. Chowdhury and Elektra v. Torres, both in Brooklyn, copyright misuse counterclaims, and an antitrust claim -- based upon collusive settlement negotiation practices -- have been interposed, and the RIAA has moved to dismiss them.

In South Carolina, in Atlantic v. Njuguna, the RIAA has moved to dismiss Ms. Njuguna's counterclaims for (a) negligence and (b) deceptive trade practices under South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, along with her counterclaim for declaratory judgment of noninfringement.

An expansive copyright misuse counterclaim was pleaded in a Tennessee case, where the defendant, a 33 year old Army Sergeant, alleged that the RIAA deliberately padded its court filings with material calculated to "shame" defendant into accepting the RIAA's settlement demand.

A number of counterclaims are now being interposed based on the RIAA's use of unlicensed investigators. See, e.g., SONY v. Crain in Beaumont, TX, Priority v. Beer in Columbus, GA, and UMG v. Del Cid above.

The RIAA has been raising the Noerr Pennington doctrine in its motions to dismiss counterclaims. The only decision of which we are aware which even mentioned the RIAA's assertion of that defense was UMG v. Del Cid, above, where the Court explicitly rejected the defense as being inapplicable to "sham ligitation".

As soon as it is able to do so, in a litigation, the RIAA routinely serves a number of pretrial discovery requests, calling for examination of the hard drive and numerous other items. If their first round of discovery does not turn up any evidence of copyright infringement, they will seek to depose family members, and others who may have had access to defendant's internet access account. If the hard drive yields no evidence of copyright infringement they will claim that there has been spoliation, or that the defendant switched hard drives.

In some cases defendants' practitioners have resisted some of the RIAA discovery demands, demanding protective orders against the RIAA's invasive and often humiliating demands, and in some cases demanding discovery of their own. (See, e.g. UMG . Heard, SONY v. Arellanes, UMG v. Lindor, Elektra v. Torres.)

SELECTIVE PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS WHICH MAY BE HELPFUL TO DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS:

PLAINTIFF'S LOST PROFITS
*Any defendant who has interposed the defense of the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory, based on the disproportionality of the damages sought in relation to the record companies' actual damages, needs to get discovery into (a) the lost revenues per authorized download and (b) the expenses that would have been incurred in connection with authorized downloads, including the (i) publisher's, (ii) artist's, and (iii) producer's royalties. In UMG v. Lindor Magistrate Judge Levy ordered discovery on both the revenues and the expenses. The revenues were provided under a stipulation. As to the expense information, where defendant was forced to make a motion to compel, the judge ruled that such discovery was "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" and ordered the RIAA to produce information about the expenses, and authorized defendant to take telephone depositions of the plaintiffs.

DAMAGE COMPUTATIONS
*Plaintiffs will try to avoid producing discovery on their damages, and will offer to stipulate to be precluded from proving their actual damages at trial. Do NOT fall into that trap and accept any such stipulation. Without discovery into plaintiff's actual damages, a defendant's lawyer will be hard pressed to place before a jury, in admissible form, evidence to establish the disproportionality of the RIAA's damages theory. The importance of this issue was underscored by the Capitol v. Thomas trial where the RIAA sought $750 to $150,000 per song file, and were awarded $9250, or 23,000 times the actual damage, per file. The defendant's lawyer, not having had discovery on this issue, would have had no way to show the jurors the fact that the actual lost profit per song file was in the neighborhood of 40 cents (as compared to $9250).

NON-PARTY'S HARD DRIVE
*Plaintiffs held not entitled to compel defendant's son, who did not reside with defendant, to produce his desktop computer, but may take limited deposition of the son as to whether he had any portable devices which he'd brought to his mother's house at the time of the screen shot. (UMG v. Lindor).
*Plaintiffs held by Magistrate to be entitled to order directing alternate manner of service for production of hard drives of a nephew, where their process server was unable to effect personal service. Over the objection of defendant, Magistrate Levy stated that "plaintiffs' claims are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to the claims and defenses in this action", but did not specify in what respect. (UMG v. Lindor)

RECORD COMPANY COLLUSION/COPYRIGHT MISUSE
*The judge in Atlantic v. Shutovsky held that defendant is entitled to discovery on this issue. The Magistrate in UMG v. Lindor held that the defendant is not entitled to discovery on this issue. Ms. Lindor has asked the Magistrate to revisit that issue.

DEPOSITIONS-CONFIDENTIALITY OF TRANSCRIPTS
*Record companies can't have a blanket advance confidentiality order for their deposition transcripts, but will have to move for a protective order as to sections they want to keep confidential. (UMG v. Lindor).

DEPOSITIONS-CONDUCT OF DEPOSITIONS
*If plaintiff being deposed by video conference, plaintiff's lawyer can't be in room with witness but must also appear by video conference; or in alternative RIAA must reimburse defendant's lawyer's travel expenses up to $500. (UMG v. Lindor).

RECORD COMPANY USE OF P2P
*On July 25, 2006, at a conference in UMG v. Lindor, Magistrate Robert M. Levy ordered the record companies to produce evidence, if any, relating to their employees' use of p2p file sharing to send music files to radio stations. The order was not reduced to writing, and subsequently -- when Ms. Lindor sought to enforce the order -- the Magistrate accepted the RIAA's response that the companies themselves had no policy of using p2p file sharing, and did not require them to disclose their employees' use of p2p. No explanation for the change was given other than that it was based upon the RIAA's opposition papers and upon the Magistrate's prior rulings.(UMG v. Lindor)

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDIASENTRY AGREEMENTS
*RIAA argued attorney client privilege, work product privilege, and confidentiality, in protective order motion in UMG v. Lindor. The Magistrate made no findings on either privilege or on confidentiality, but ruled that the agreements -- which were being sought for crossexamination of MediaSentry -- were not relevant and granted the protective order. Defendant has filed objections to the Magistrate's order, seeking a ruling from District Judge Trager.

WHOLESALE PRICES OF DOWNLOADS
*Defendant is entitled to "all relevant documents" and a deposition relating to the record companies' pricing of legal downloads, in connection with her affirmative defense challenging the constitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory. (UMG v. Lindor).

COPYRIGHT DOCUMENTS.
*RIAA ordered to produce 'chain of title' documents for any copyrights as to which the name of the plaintiff is not the name on the copyright registration, or as to which there has ever been any dispute of copyright ownership. (UMG v. Lindor)

DEFENDANT'S DISCOVERY INTO HARD DRIVE ANALYSIS.
*Defendant can take pretrial discovery into the plaintiffs' analysis of the hard drive, including contention interrogatories and depositions. (UMG v. Lindor).

PRECLUSION AS TO SONG FILES
*RIAA precluded from using any song files not produced in response to document request (UMG v. Lindor).

PRECLUSION AS TO DAMAGES
*In view of failure to set forth actual damages in response to interrogatory, plaintiffs precluded from introducing evidence of damages. (UMG v. Lindor). However, this preclusion is of little value to defendant's lawyers who want to establish the disproportionality of the RIAA's statutory damages theory ($750 to $150,000 per song file) to plaintiffs' actual damages (probably in the neighborhood of 35 cents per file or less).

EXPERT WITNESSES
*In Atlantic v. Andersen, where the plaintiffs' hard drive expert had examined a mirror image, the Court ordered the RIAA to provide a detailed expert witnesss report regarding the hard drive inspection, including the expert's identity, qualifications, methodology, investigation chronology, notes, records, raw data, and informed opinion and conclusions of the investigation.
*In UMG v. Lindor, in an attempt to stave off discovery into its communications and agreements with MediaSentry, the RIAA argued that MediaSentry's investigator Tom Mizzone is not an expert but merely a paid fact witness, and that what he did to "investigate" did not require any expertise, but was what any other Kazaa user could have done. They said that at trial he would not testify to any conclusions about infringement, but would merely recite what he did, and that Dr. Doug Jacobson would be the only expert, and the one to connect the dots. Ms. Lindor's attorney disputes that argument. See, e.g., USA v. Ganier, 468 F.3d 920, 925-926 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2006). Meanwhile, Ms. Lindor's attorneys conducted a deposition of Dr. Jacobson on February 23, 2007. The transcript is available online. Likewise the transcript of the November 30th oral argument, at which the RIAA took the position that MediaSentry could not testify to any opinions or conclusions, is available online. Ms. Lindor has now moved for in limine exclusion of Dr. Jacobson's testimony at trial, based upon his failure to satisfy the Daubert "reliability" factors.

ATTORNEYS FEE REASONABLENESS
In Capitol v. Foster, where the Court has ruled that defendant is entitled to her reasonable attorneys fees, the RIAA made the unusual request -- which the Court granted -- to be permitted discovery into the "reasonableness" of the defendant's attorneys fees. In doing so, however, they opened the door for the defendant to request plaintiffs' attorneys' billing records, which request the Court granted as well. The Court set a strict 60-day time limit on the "reasonableness" discovery, and declined several attempts by the RIAA to extend it. The Court granted the RIAA's request to keep its legal bills confidential, although it is unclear what legal basis, if any, there was for the request. An evidentiary hearing was conducted.

RECORDS OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER
*In UMG v. Lindor the RIAA served an extensive subpoena duces tecum on Verizon, the ISP in question, some 4 years after its first subpoena to Verizon. The new subpoena is quite broad and, in addition to logs and other ISP records, asks for copies of the defendant's emails, a request which in some cases would raise grave privacy concerns.

In Virgin v. Morgan the defendant is also challenging the RIAA's damages theory on statutory grounds, based on Section 504(c)(2) of the Copyright Act, which permits the statutory damages to be reduced from $750 to $200 in certain instances of innocent infringement. But see BMG v. Gonzalez, where the Seventh Circuit held that defendant could not avail herself of the 504(c)(2) defense because of the copyright notices on plaintiffs' CD's, even though she hadn't seen the CD's, since she "readily could have learned, had she inquired, that the music was under copyright". (Ed. note: The illogic of Gonzalez cries out for a comment here. I feel that Gonzalez contradicts the plain language, as well as the obvious intent, of the copyright Act, and is inconsistent with the whole principle of copyright notice which permeates the Act. Obviously anyone could "readily" learn, by inquiring, as to the copyright of anything, since copyright registrations are publicly filed in Washington, DC, but the law imposes no such duty. But the decision is from a court of appeals, and therefore has to be taken seriously by practitioners, even those outside of the Seventh Circuit. Hopefully the Seventh Circuit will come to realize its error, and/or other circuit courts will conclude otherwise, and/or the Supreme Court will catch up to this issue.)

In some cases where the RIAA discontinued the case, the defendant has sought attorneys fees. In Priority Records v. Chan and Elektra v. Perez the defendant's motion was denied. In Capitol Records v. Foster and Atlantic v. Andersen, the motion was granted. Ms. Foster was awarded $68,685.23. The initial amount sought was approximately $55,000, which quickly rose to $114,000 as a result of a frenetic round of litigation activity after the Court had indicated Ms. Foster would be awarded her reasonably attorneys fees. In an unusual move, the judge (a) allowed discovery on the reasonableness issue, and (b) conducted an actual full-day evidentiary hearing on the issue as well. The Court denied a "reconsideration" motion the RIAA had made, in a decision which reads like a treatise on the importance of attorneys fee awards to prevailing defendants in copyright infringement cases, and which reiterated the "untested and marginal" nature of the RIAA's claim, found the RIAA's motives in pressing it "questionable", labeled one of the RIAA's arguments "disingenuous", and found its statement of the facts to be "not true". The Court, in reducing the fee award, gave, among others, the following reasons: (a) the bills totalled the time for all activities in the day, rather than breaking out the time for each task, (b) defendant's attorney spent a great deal of time reviewing plaintiffs' attorneys billing records but did not make effective use of them at the hearing, and (c) the level of activity rose dramatically after the Court had determined that plaintiffs would be required to pay defendant's reasonable attorneys fees.

In Atlantic v. Andersen, the Magistrate Judge has issued a 15-page report granting Ms. Andersen's motion for attorneys fees. The amount of the fees has not yet been set. The decision stated that "these plaintiffs.... should be deterred".

In Priority Records v. Candy Chan, a Michigan case, the RIAA initially refused to withdraw the case against a mother who clearly had not herself engaged in file sharing, but then changed its mind and did discontinue the case when faced with the mother's motion for summary judgment and attorneys fees.

A scenario similar to that in Priority v. Candy Chan occurred in Capitol v. Foster, in Oklahoma, where the RIAA withdrew only when faced with the mother's motion for summary judgment and attorneys fees. The judge let the RIAA drop its case, but held that the 'voluntary' withdrawal did not make the RIAA immune from legal fees, and indicated that he might award the mother her attorneys fees. Ultimately he did, awarding Ms. Foster $68,685.23. Ms. Foster's attorneys fee motion was supported by an amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, Public Citizen, and the ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma. In their brief the 'friends of the court' told the judge that "the RIAA has wrought havoc in the lives of many innocent Americans" and that an award of attorneys fees is necessary to deter such conduct in the future.

In another Oklahoma City case, Warner v. Stubbs, the defendant -- represented by the same lawyer who represented Debbie Foster -- filed an answer and counterclaim saying that the RIAA's tactics amounted to extortion. The very next day the RIAA moved to withdraw its case. The motion to dismiss without prejudice was granted. Immediately thereafter the RIAA tendered a unilateral "covenant not to sue" in an attempt to stave off a declaratory judgment -- on Ms. Stubbs's counterclaim -- of noninfringement. The judge agreed with the RIAA that the "covenant" was a sufficient basis for dismissing the counterclaim.

In Virgin Records v. Tammie Marson, the RIAA voluntarily dismissed its case when confronted with the impossibility of determining who used defendant's computer, and in Warner v. Maravilla it voluntarily dismissed -- after defendant had made a dismissal motion -- upon learning that the ISP had given them the wrong name. Both Marson and Maravilla were in the Central District of California.

A Georgia case, Atlantic v. Zuleta, in which defendant had a wireless router, the IP address was connected to a wireless router, and the defendant's roommate's first name was the same as the screen name, the case was discontinued "without prejudice".

Elektra v. Wilke, in Chicago, was withdrawn after Mr. Wilke made a summary judgment motion. See Summary Judgment below. A second, similar discontinuance took place 6 months later in Chicago in BMG v. Thao.

The RIAA withdrew one of the most highly publicized of the RIAA v. Consumer cases, Elektra v. Santangelo, after two years of litigation, as it moved on to pursue two of Ms. Santangelo's children. The RIAA would have liked the dismissal to be "without prejudice", so that it would not be liable for attorneys fees. (See Capitol v. Foster July 13, 2006, Order). Ms. Santangelo, of course, did not agree with that approach; neither did Judge McMahon. She ruled that the RIAA must proceed to trial unless a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice is filed by April 1st. The parties then stipulated to dismiss with prejudice, leaving open the question of Ms. Santangelo's entitlement to attorneys fees.

Similarly, in Atlantic v. Andersen, after pursuing Tanya Andersen for about 2 years, the RIAA stipulated to dismiss its claims with prejudice, leaving open only Ms. Andersen's claim for attorneys fees, her various counterclaims, and her action against the RIAA for malicious prosecution.

Voluntary discontinuances have taken place in Michigan in Warner v. Pidgeon and in Washington in Interscope v. Leadbetter. In Leadbetter the RIAA tried to discontinue against the defendant but add her fiance as a defendant; the Court denied permission to add the fiance as a defendant, dismissed the case in its entirety, and indicated that it would consider the imposition of attorneys fees against the RIAA in a separate motion. Ms. Leadbetter has brought on a motion for attorneys fees.

After receiving a lengthy letter from defendant's counsel in SONY v. Merchant, a Sacramento, California, case, describing the paucity of the RIAA's evidence and threatening a malicious prosecution lawsuit, the RIAA within hours filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

In Elektra v. Dennis, in Jackson, MS, after receiving a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, the RIAA cross moved to dismiss without prejudice.

In Priority Records v. Brittany Chan, the litigation against Candy Chan's 14 year old daughter (See Voluntary discontinuance above), who allegedly engaged in file sharing when she was 13, the judge had held that the RIAA could not sue a child without getting a guardian ad litem appointed. The RIAA made a motion to have a guardian ad litem appointed so that its case might proceed against the minor, but the Judge rejected the motion because it did not ensure payment of the guardian ad litem's fees. The judge thereafter dismissed the case when the RIAA ignored his instruction to submit a plan that would ensure payment of the guardian ad litem's fees.

Continuing its policy of bringing lawsuits against children, on November 1, 2006, the RIAA commenced suit against two of Patti Santangelo's children, one of whom is only 16 years old. Elektra v. Santangelo II. Although a discovery schedule and an answer and counterclaims have been filed, it remains to be seen whether these -- and the commencement of the underlying lawsuit -- are enforceable or are nullities in view of the absence of a guardian ad litem.

It sought to compel a face-to-face deposition of a 10-year-old child in Atlantic v. Andersen. The Judge, however, limited them to a telephonic or videoconference deposition instead. In UMG v. Hightower, it served a deposition subpoena on a high school student, returnable on 24 hours notice. The subpoena was served on the defendant at his high school, and was returnable at 9:00 a.m. of a school day. Shortly thereafter, the RIAA abruptly dropped the case altogether.

In Atlantic v. Andersen, Elektra v. Schwartz, and other cases, the RIAA has brought suit against disabled people, even knowing that they are disabled. In both Schwartz and Andersen the disabled defendants are people who have never downloaded songs or engaged in file sharing at all. In Elektra v. Schwartz, the defendant has severe Multiple Sclerosis, and gets around in an electric scooter. Her lawyer specifically asked the RIAA to drop the case; it declined. Thereafter a motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem was requested. Magistrate Levy granted Ms. Schwartz's motion, and appointed a guardian ad litem.

In Warner v. Paladuk in Michigan the RIAA sued a totally disabled stroke victim who was living in Florida at the time of the alleged infringement in Michigan.

In a Michigan case, Warner v. Scantlebury, after learning that the defendant died, the RIAA asked the Court for a 60-day stay to allow the family to "grieve", after which it said it intends to take depositions of the decedent's children. We have received unconfirmed reports that after a firestorm of controversy erupted over the internet, the RIAA now intends to withdraw the case against the deceased.

In an Illinois case where the defendant admitted to downloading 30 songs without authorization, the plaintiffs' summary judgment motion was granted. BMG v. Gonzalez. In an Alabama case where the defendant did not admit to personally having copied or distributed plaintiffs' song files, the RIAA's summary judgment motion was denied. Motown v. Liggins. (Interestingly, Mr. Liggins appeared pro se.)

In Interscope v. Leadbetter, the RIAA's summary judgment motion against the original defendant's son is presently being briefed, as is the son's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the case.

As to defendant's summary judgment motions in general, we do not yet know how they will fare in the courts.

In August, 2006, a motion for summary judgment was made by the defendant, in Chicago, in Warner v. Wilke. The plaintiffs' initial response was to make a motion for expedited pretrial discovery, indicating to the Judge that, without it, they do not have enough evidence with which to oppose Mr. Wilke's motion. Thereafter, however, they dropped the case altogether, "with prejudice" (meaning they cannot sue again).

In Brooklyn, where all RIAA v. Consumer cases are assumed to be "related" and assigned to Judge Trager, the judge appears to have a policy of discouraging defendants' summary judgment motions until after the close of discovery. In February, 2006, Marie Lindor wrote a letter to Judge Trager asking for a premotion conference in connection with her planned summary judgment motion in UMG v. Lindor; the judge, however, referred the case to the Magistrate for pretrial discovery prior to summary judgment motion practice. After submitting to a deposition, and to an inspection of the hard drive of the computer in her apartment, after answering all of the RIAA's written discovery demands, and after arranging for her adult son and daughter to testify voluntarily at their depositions, she again wrote to the Judge renewing her request for a summary judgment pre-motion conference and for a stay of discovery during the pendency of the motion. Judge Trager again said she couldn't make the motion, and wanted her to wait until after the completion of discovery. Judge Trager reacted similarly to Rae J Schwartz's request for summary judgment in Elektra v. Schwartz, issuing a formal order indicating that he thought such a motion to be premature.

We are anxious to hear the results of defendant's summary judgments in other districts, where summary judgment motions are permitted to be made in the ordinary course.

The dismissal motion in Elektra v. Dennis in Mississippi was accompanied by an affidavit of the defendant and alternatively sought summary judgment. The RIAA withdrew its case, however.

Settlements during the course of a litigation are not dissimilar to those prior to litigation. The RIAA seeks a larger amount, typically $4500 plus $375 court costs, nonnegotiable, and submits a form of settlement which is likewise nonnegotiable. It is difficult to obtain information on this process since most settlement discussions are confidential.

The judgment in Motown v. Lisberg, a California case, is an example of the RIAA's non-negotiable "settlement".

In Capitol v. Foster, due to a waiver of confidentiality, there is some insight available into the process. There the RIAA was willing to make a payment of attorneys fees to Ms. Foster, but in an amount that was far less than she had incurred. The parties never reached agreement on the amount, and the matter of attorneys fees is being considered by the judge. One might speculate that there may have been settlements in which the RIAA withdrew its case and paid the defendant attorneys fees, but the RIAA would no doubt have insisted upon confidentiality of such a settlement, and so we would never know about it.

We are aware of the RIAA's claim that it accepts reduced amounts in "hardship" cases, however we have not confirmed the existence of any instance of them ever having accepted a reduced amount.

Cases which are in litigation are under the aegis of a Magistrate Judge or District Court Judge, so it is always possible that the Court will become involved in the settlement process. In Maverick v. Goldshteyn, the Magistrate Judge, at the request of Ms. Goldshteyn, scheduled a settlement conference, at which the principals were required to attend, in person, and with settlement authority. However, at the actual conference, a single attorney representing the RIAA was accepted by the judge as an appropriate "principal" of all of the plaintiffs. A stipulation and order of settlement has been entered, and is available online.

In Brooklyn, where all the cases are being treated as "related" and are being supervised by a single magistrate, the RIAA has sought to initiate a mass settlement conference. (See Elektra v. Torres, Elektra v. Schwartz, and Maverick v. Chowdhury.

The RIAA has taken the position, in UMG v. Lindor, that MediaSentry's investigator is not an expert witness. Defendant disagreed with that contention. SeeUSA v. Ganier, 468 F.3d 920, 925-926 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2006). The Magistrate, in his order, never ruled on that question one way or the other.

According to the RIAA, its only expert witness is a Dr. Doug Jacobson, an associate professor at Iowa State University, who is also the founder and a co-owner of Palisade Systems, a company that sells antipiracy software. The RIAA indicated, at oral argument on November 30, 2006, that MediaSentry will not testify to any opinions or conclusions about copyright infringement, but will only testify as to the steps it took, and that it will fall upon Dr. Jacobson to testify as to what MediaSentry's investigation actually meant.

Dr. Jacobson appears to be a dual-purpose expert, claiming to be qualified in both forensic and internet issues. His deposition was taken in UMG v. Lindor on February 23, 2007, and the transcript and exhibits are available online, as is the transcript of the November 30th argument.

Ms. Lindor's attorneys have made a motion to exclude Dr. Jacobson's testimony, based upon its inadmissibility under the Daubert case and Fed. R. Evid. 702.

In Thomas, the RIAA sought $750 to $150,000 per song file. After being instructed -- at the RIAA's request -- that plaintiffs had no obligation to prove any actual downloading or uploading, the jury found that defendant had wilfully infringed 24 recordings, and awarded $9250 each, for a total verdict of $222,000.

A motion was made to set aside the verdict on the ground that the damages were unconstitutionally excessive. On May 15, 2008, the Court sua sponte indicated that it had independently discovered an alternative reason for setting the verdict aside, namely that its aforementioned jury instruction, adopting the RIAA's 'making available' theory, was a "manifest error of law". On September 24, 2008, the Court set the verdict aside, and ordered a new trial on that ground. However, the Court also implored Congress to ensure that large verdicts of that nature could not recur against non-commercial users, such as Ms. Thomas.

We have posted a few documents relating to the Thomas case. Many additional documents relating to the trial may be found through PACER. The case is in the District of Minnesota, and the file number is Civ. No. 06-1497 (MJD/RLE).

A bit of guidance as to the standards for trial has come down in UMG v. Lindor, in connection with a preclusion motion, where the Court held that "[a]t trial, plaintiffs will have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant did indeed infringe plaintiff’s copyrights by convincing the fact-finder, based on the evidence plaintiffs have gathered, that defendant actually shared sound files belonging to plaintiffs."

Likewise, the denial of summary judgment in the abovementioned Motown v. Liggins suggests that the plaintiff would have to prove actual copying or actual "distribution".

In both cases, it is not clear whether the judges have at this point considered that (a) there are certain types of file "sharing" which would not constitute copyright infringement, or (b) "distribution" is a defined term under the Copyright Act, one which requires a sale, transfer of ownership, lending, lease, or rental, of a phonorecord or other copy, to "the public".

In Oregon, after the RIAA withdrew it claims against Tanya Andersen with prejudice, Ms.Andersen brought a malicious prosecution suit against the RIAA, the record company plaintiffs, Safenet (MediaSentry), and Settlement Support Center, LLC. She thereafter amended her complaint to convert it into a class action. The RIAA has moved to dismiss.

The papers dispute that Oppenheim should be deposed as the representative of a corporate party, saying that he is only an attorney, even though he has presented himself to various Judges as "the principal" of the record companies, "the only person with settlement authority", "the client", and "the client representative".

In a North Carolina case which has been going on for awhile, first as LaFace Records v. Does 1-38, then as SONY BMG Music v. Doe, but which I will now begin covering as SONY BMG Music v. Moursy, the RIAA and Safenet have been named as additional defendants on counterclaims, and the plaintiffs have moved to dismissed the counterclaims.

I can't quite figure out what is going on in the case of Capitol Records v. Lashaana Straw in Boston. This is the case in which the defendant, unrepresented by counsel, had entered into a "settlement" with the RIAA, but Judge Gertner rejected the settlement due to the fact that it had called for a judgment to be entered which was for twice the amount of the settlement.

Now, for reasons which are not apparent, it appears that an attorney from Milton, Massachusetts, entered a non-electronically-filed "appearance" in in the case in late January.

I am a business lawyer in New York City, practicing at Ray Beckerman, P.C.. The purpose of this site is to collect and share information about the wave of sham "copyright infringement" lawsuits started by four large record companies, and other areas of concern to digital online copyright law, and to internet law in general. -Ray Beckermanbeckermanlegal.com(Attorney Advertising)

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2." -Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove